Forte v. County of Merced et al

Filing 296

ORDER STAYING Deposition Discovery Pending Resolution of Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement (Doc. 280-282). (1) Deposition Discovery, including subpoenas, is STAYED pending the resolution of the motion to supplement the complaint. (2) Plai ntiffs Reply brief for his motion to supplement remains due on January 30, 2015. (3) Upon ruling on Plaintiffs motion to supplement, the Court will address any extension of the fact discovery deadline to address proper deposition discovery requests. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/26/2015. (Herman, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

EUGENE E. FORTE,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

Case No. 1:11-cv-00318-AWI-BAM
ORDER STAYING DEPOSITION
DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION
OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
SUPPLEMENT (Doc. 280-282.)

v.
COUNTY OF MERCED, et al.,
Defendants.
/

14
15
16

Several motions are pending before the court, including terminating sanctions and a motion to

17

supplement the complaint. In addition to these motions, on January 23, 2015, Defendants filed an ex

18
19
20
21
22

parte application to shorten the time to move to quash the deposition subpoenas issued by Plaintiff to
third party witnesses County of Merced District Attorney Larry Morse, County of Merced County
Counsel James Fincher, and County of Merced County Sheriff Thomas Cavallero. Plaintiff filed
oppositions to the ex parte request. (Doc. 294-295.) Plaintiff also filed a “Request for Courts’
Confirmation” regarding subpoenas. (Doc. 290-291.) Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s
request. (Doc. 292.)

23
24
25
26
27

In the interest of conserving the resources of both the court and the parties, the court STAYS
deposition discovery, including subpoenas, pending the resolution of Plaintiff’s motion to supplement.
Under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court may, for good cause shown,
issue a protective order regarding discovery. A court may enter such an order sua sponte. See e.g.,
McCoy v. Southwest Airlines Co., 211 F.R.D. 381, 385 (C.D. Cal. 2002); Coleman v. Schwarzenegger,

28
1

1

2007 WL 4276554 (E.D. Cal. Nov.29, 2007) (“Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and in

2

the inherent discretion of a court to manage its own discovery, a court may sua sponte enter a

3

protective order for good cause shown. A protective order may include an order that “discovery not be

4

had.”)

5
6

ORDER
1. Deposition Discovery, including subpoenas, is STAYED pending the resolution of the

7

motion to supplement the complaint.

8

2. Plaintiff’s Reply brief for his motion to supplement remains due on January 30, 2015.

9

3. Upon ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to supplement, the Court will address any extension of
the fact discovery deadline to address proper deposition discovery requests.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
14

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

January 26, 2015

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2